A64 and FX DESTROYED BY EE

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

FUGGER

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,490
0
19,780
I thought the A64 and FX were supposed to be fast??

A64 is now totally owned by the EE and has no chance of beating it, ever.

GG AMD, with the 940 chipset. A dead end that you make people pay extra for memory. FX is a dead horse,and I shot it.

<A HREF="http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=mo3dmark2001&Number=2974670&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1&vc=1" target="_new">Nice to see the top AMD benchmarkers proclaim they jumped ship too soon and state how they cannot compete with EE.</A>

I can link a dozen similar threads that all say the same thing and that is the EE beat the A64 and FX brutally.

EE doors are wide open to dominate the high end gaming market.

The all caps title is in memory of Melty, I know how you all miss him.

Let me say this ahead of time, if you chiming to defend AMD and do not own a A64 or FX just sit back down. Tell us you are still gonna buy one and a good reason cause AMD needs to see something in its favor after I deflated many ego's. Done even talk price as FX is the most expensive carcass to get into atm.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
 
amd still has a long way to go before they can compete with intel.

---------
Intel PIV 2.4C @ 3.0G \
Asus P4C800 \
Corsair 2x512 3200LL memory \
Radeon 9600pro @ 500/700/1.35 \
SB Live 5.1 \
80G Seagate S-ATA150 \
430 Antec 1080AMG
 
LOL....I think we should wait for the 939 pin...we should see a 17% boost from 3dmarks..

---
If you go to work and your name is on the door, you're rich. If your name is on your desk, you're middle class. If your name is on your shirt, you're poor!
 
Am I supposed to care or something?

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
 
If Intel's going to "dominate" a segment with a largely unavailable $1000 CPU, that will be quite a feat.

Where there's a will, there's a way-even when it comes to screwing up.
 
Yawn...a P4EE holds the crown in a total of ONE(1) rather obsolete benchmark for 5 days, and FUGGER declares the competition dead and buried. Never mind that the P4EE platform is hotter-running, more power-hungry, about as expensive, less future-proof, and far less available than the FX51, and loses about as many benchmarks as it wins. Oh, and the FX53 is likely to hit retail availability before the P4EE even makes it off the paper.

Same sh*t, different day. Your scores would be more impressive, FUGGER, if your presentation wasn't so lamely fanboyish. :wink:

(And no, I don't own an AMD64 part. I'll still willfully post here, because nobody made you king and god of this thread. If you don't like reality striking your thread, tough. :tongue: )

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
 
So what score did you get with your test setup, and did you benchmark the AMD chips also.

All you can state for sure, is that your System (not processor) is quick. I'll let you off for being young!
 
Some things never change, and that includes you.

You better check again on that 1 benchmark theory of yours. The 2K1 was the last stronghold of A64 that I crushed all hope of AMD users at.

you got facts backwards about AMD availability, Im a reviewer and a developer and AMD was unable to get a FX to me. Nothing but excuses on very low yields or no parts arrinving. The FX costs far more than EE to get into, you gotta buy new dead end mobo and registered ram (plus chip) for a dead end 940 chipset that is being replaced by the end of the year. You got the there, rofl.

talking about paper chip FX53, G1. EE's are shipping to vendors now in quantity, bummer the price is high to make but well worth it at that performance level.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
 
lol, those are all 64bit AMD's not bartons. In fact barton is not findable for a few pages in.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
 
lol, those are all 64bit AMD's not bartons. In fact barton is not findable for a few pages in.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
 
They thought they had the 32/64 nitch but it seems Microsoft is holding tight untill Prescott is released before they release the hybred 32/64 OS.

Watch, Prescott will be released with XP 32/64. I posted this information over 6 months ago from the Yamhill papers where Gates made a deal with Intel on that windows OS release not to be before Intel is ready.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
 
Who is popegoldx??

I posted a thread, you are the one trolling here.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
 
You better check again on that 1 benchmark theory of yours. The 2K1 was the last stronghold of A64 that I crushed all hope of AMD users at.
Click to expand...
Oh really, where did all the other crushing occur? Funny that most professional benchmarkers (AnandTech, Ace's, [H]Forums) disagree with you. The P4EE might be considered "on par" with the AthlonFX, if it was actually available at all.

you got facts backwards about AMD availability, Im a reviewer and a developer and AMD was unable to get a FX to me.
Click to expand...
Ahem, newegg.com. pricewatch.com. dell.com (yes, dell's having trouble getting P4EE systems out the door). They're a much better yardstick than you and your unique position.

Nothing but excuses on very low yields or no parts arrinving.
Click to expand...
Fancy an Intel fanboi saying that. Chances are AMD just doesn't care too much about SGI, especially with SGI already firmly stuck on the Intel train. Or maybe you just wanted a free part instead of putting your money down at newegg like everyone else. :wink:

The FX costs far more than EE to get into, you gotta buy new dead end mobo and registered ram (plus chip) for a dead end 940 chipset that is being replaced by the end of the year.
Click to expand...
FX is about $200 less on the CPU than P4EE, so that kind of makes up for registered RAM. And EE is only a cheap upgrade if you already have a P4 mobo with 800MHz FSB.

Oh, and socketed P4s are being replaced by LGA P4s around middle of next year. Socket940 FX is due to live alongside Socket939 FX at least until the end of 2004. Now what were you saying about a dead-end mobo/chipset?

talking about paper chip FX53, G1.
Click to expand...
Pot, kettle. Actually, you're more like the pot calling the rainbow black, but hey, whatever keeps your ego together.

FX-51 is available to retail consumers. P4EE isn't, end of story. FX-53 is likely to be availabe in retail quite a while before Dell can even get its first P4EE system out.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
 
Where? um, 3D gaming market. most online reviewers (not professional benchmarkers) run stuff of at stock and that is not "overclocking".

"FX is about $200 less on the CPU than P4EE, so that kind of makes up for registered RAM. And EE is only a cheap upgrade if you already have a P4 mobo with 800MHz FSB." nice math but you forgot cost of a mobo and you have a choice of 1. I dont care if you get your price from good will it will still cost more to create the carcass.

brb in a few, not enough time to reply to rest yet.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
 
Damn it man. Why don't you return back to your hole and leave us alone in our misery? Ok, you are right, P4EE is the gratest processor ever. It performs 20% faster than the FX-51 and costs 20% less. In fact, I am buying one next week because I don't know what else to do with the $1000 I have in my drawer next to me. Now LEAVE! Sh1t!
 
YO YO YO. 1M cool haxxoer an 1 design c00l haxxxxoer systems! Intel like total pwnz AMD cause AMD sucks and is not 1337!

<font color=blue>
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not " <b>--</b> <i><font color=red> George Bernard Shaw</i></font color=red></font color=blue>
 
Fugger, your post was clearly worded so as to stir up the AMD fanboys - in other words, it's a troll post. (And please don't embarrass yourself calling me an AMD fanboy - I <b>work</b> at Intel.) But we do have a constitutional right to free speech, so post what you will...

Now how about some links to benchmarks straight from the sources:

P4XE:
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20030922-02522.html" target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20030922-02522.html</A>
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20030922-02523.html" target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20030922-02523.html</A>

Athlon64-FX 2.2 GHz:
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-20030908-02473.html" target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-20030908-02473.html</A>
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-20030908-02472.html" target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-20030908-02472.html</A>

Looks to me like the P4XE wins overall, but each processor shines in some instances.

And for those who are curious, more P4XE benchmarks can be found here:
<A HREF="http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/extreme.htm" target="_new">http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/extreme.htm</A>

* Not speaking for Intel Corporation *
 
oh come on, this board is not just for americans, the american constitution doesnt HAVE to apply to the rest of the world. but this aint the place to pick that discusion up.

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015
 
Not smart. Even for an Intel fanboy. Yes, the EE outperforms the FX - in some categories. But so would a Cray II, moron. In the bang-for-bucks category, AMD has ALWAYS bested Intel. And they always will, because Intel markets to OEMs and to uninformed, uneducated power hogs. AMD doesn't need hyper-marketing, because they have the best and most reliable exposure possible - word-of-mouth. AMD gamers know they have the best, and Intel fools their gamers into thinking they have the best.

Women--can't live with them, can't have heterosexual same-species intercourse without them.
 
Rather than just stirring the people with fanboyistic taunting, why don't you finally provide some Panther benchmarks on G5s, with proper apps to show us where the 64-bit performance comes from?
(Note: That means apps that actually NEED more than 2GB per process, or need over 32-bit integers, ya, not like AMD with the AMD64 containing a technology which can work without the NEED for 64-bit)

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 
You know what is really funny. Intel is using cl 3.0 and 4 128mb chips while amd uses cl 2.5 and 2 512mb and intel still did better. At lease in the links you gave sonoran.

I am not saying that intel is the best, I am going by what these test show. I myself just upgraded not to long ago to intel, but in a year I might go with the amd fx, it all depends on whats better in a year and I know that the fx will get better support for the chipsets by that time, so who knows what I will upgrade to.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> 😎 <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SJJM on 11/05/03 12:55 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
All I know is that at my usu. UK supplier, a P4EE costs £600 (pre-order) and a P4 2.8C costs £129

Is a P4EE really 4.65 times better than a 2.8C?



"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
 
AMD doesn't need hyper-marketing, because they have the best and most reliable exposure possible - word-of-mouth.
Click to expand...
While I do see your point, I don't think word-of-mouth is "the best and most reliable exposure possible". If it were, then AMD wouldn't be in the position it is currently in - 20% market share...

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom